Task Force to Study Deed Fraud
HB 130 changes Maryland’s wiretapping/intercepted communications law in two main ways. First, it creates a specific five-year statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions under § 10-402(a), which covers willfully intercepting, disclosing, or using wire, oral, or electronic communications obtained through unlawful interception. Second, it reclassifies a violation of that section from a felony to a misdemeanor, while keeping the same maximum penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.
The bill also makes a conforming change to the courts and judicial proceedings limitations statute by adding the new five-year limitations period for these offenses. The measure applies prospectively beginning October 1, 2025, and amends the Maryland Code provisions governing criminal limitations periods and communications interception offenses.
HB 130 would alter the criminal classification and charging timeline for intercepted communications offenses under Maryland law. It adds a specific limitations period for prosecutions under the wiretap/interception statute and changes the offense from a felony to a misdemeanor, which affects how the offense is categorized in the criminal code and may influence collateral consequences tied to felony status. The bill leaves the substantive prohibited conduct and maximum punishment unchanged, but it modifies the procedural window for prosecution and the legal label attached to the offense.
The available legislative history suggests the bill moved forward without recorded opposition in the materials provided. It received a favorable committee report with amendments and was adopted by the House on second reading, indicating general support for the proposal. No committee transcript or vote breakdown is available here, so the record does not show detailed debate or divided sentiment.
The main point of potential contention is the decision to downgrade the offense from a felony to a misdemeanor while preserving a relatively serious maximum sentence of five years. Supporters may view this as a technical or proportionality adjustment, while critics could question whether the misdemeanor label understates the seriousness of unlawful interception and disclosure of communications. A second issue is the new five-year limitations period, which expands the time for prosecution and may raise concerns for defendants about delayed charges, though it also gives prosecutors more time to investigate these offenses.